With such harsh current rulings against the world's many torrent sites, one company is heavily profiting from the types of searches which are responsible for over 60% of all global searches. Google, valiantly remains the world's largest torrent indexer, although some choose to disagree. The debate on Google remains as disputable as any argument, although some of us know, that the unfair war against the torrent site's, is being heavily over-looked against Google.
Tags: Google Copywriter, Google Copyright, Google Copyrighting, Google Infrigment, Google Copyright Infringer
Read More
For those who do not understand how Google violates the same "regulations" that are being "alleged" as being broken by the torrent and warez sites, let me explain. The Google Bot spiders the logs of every site, and the bot then spiders all the previous searches (urls with arguments) and Google indexes them. Thus using Google, you can access tons of claimed "copyright" infringing torrents.
So why is it okay for Google to do this? Well, some would claim Google does not host the alleged infringing files on their servers. True, but neither do torrent sites. A torrent site works as a search engine, merely pointing you in the proper location. The only files that are uploaded to torrent sites, are small, BitTorrent files, which provide torrent clients the ability to know who has the said files, by pinpointing a swarm into the proper direction, and allowing one to access that which they are looking for. Torrent files themselves are in no way, shape, or form, illegal, or violate any copyright laws.
So Google, continues to lead the world as the most visited website, even though it's been proven that at least 75% of all internet traffic, is used for file sharing. They profit daily, from ad revenue, that can be seen on the same pages, as indexed searches of copyrighted material. In some nations though, torrent sites under fire, have legally demanded this topic be further reviewed by the courts, before allowing torrent sites to receive all the fire, simply for lack of understanding how it all works.
Just recently, Isohunt, has broughtit before the attention of the anti piracy outfits in Canada. IsoHunt Web Technologies Inc, the company behind the IsoHunt Bittorent search engine, has delivered a case against the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) in front of a British Columbia court, raising questions about whether search engines are liable for the sharing of copyrighted material. Isohunt delivered the case outline in court after the company received legal threats from the legal threats from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and CRIA.
The courts must now decide, whether infamous search engines such as Google, Yahoo, or Bing, which also return search queries linking in "alleged" copyrighted materials, are breaking the same copyright laws as the advocates for anti piracy claim that the IsoHuner web site does. In front of the legal system, Isohunt's attorneys demonstrated to the court, that Google can be used search for the same files that are also being found on sites like Isohunt. The only thing that torrent sites do differently, is that torrent sites are used specifically to find BitTorrent files, while Google searches all file extensions.
None the less, Google, still the world's largest search engine, is not being charged for doing the same thing that smaller torrent indexers do, allow users to search for copyrighted material. Becoming an "enabler" for the access of illegal materials. Isohunts's Gary Fung has stated, "It's disappointing to see CRIA wanting to unnecessarily complicate our well defined petition, in attempt to bog us down with time and money through messy discovery and in the process the court's time too.".
Google, Yahoo, MSN, and other major search engines could be engaged in a legal battle in Canada for returning search queries related to copyrighted material. Or maybe it will be overlooked yet again. If in fact it is over-looked, then it's time for someone to announce the hypocrisy of the anti piracy outfits. In fact, to this date, Google has linked more users to copyrighted materials, then all torrent sites combined.
Some can defend Google yes, and say it doesn't have the intent to link to copyrighted materials, where as torrent sites do. No, that claim is outrageous as well, where as torrent sites are meant to link you to useful "legal" materials, and help it's users find them with ease. There are lots of products that are not considered copyright violations, that you can find via torrent sites.
Google could easily defend itself against rather unmatched opponents such as the industry led anti piracy advocates. It's brand is worth over a hundred billion dollars. It's awfully hard to compete in trial against a company with the finances to defy and obliterate you, and the industry moguls know this.
Not only do they know Google is a multimedia powerhouse, but it's also a direct financer of many Hollywood production companies, and their owner's personal business ventures. Also, a new tool from Google was introduced, allowing locked DRM releated videos to be sold from it's online store. Google Video, delivers in a securely locked format, in which restricts how Google members are able to use and view the videos which they have purchased. Such forms of security, are known as a Digital Rights Management system (DRM). DRM is also used by many Google's competitors, and other forms of entertainment, for the purpose that it is unlike any other copyright system that is currently in place. Instead, it enforces a single method of how copyright should work, and forces it to be used by Google's customers.
So why is it okay for Google to do this? Well, some would claim Google does not host the alleged infringing files on their servers. True, but neither do torrent sites. A torrent site works as a search engine, merely pointing you in the proper location. The only files that are uploaded to torrent sites, are small, BitTorrent files, which provide torrent clients the ability to know who has the said files, by pinpointing a swarm into the proper direction, and allowing one to access that which they are looking for. Torrent files themselves are in no way, shape, or form, illegal, or violate any copyright laws.
So Google, continues to lead the world as the most visited website, even though it's been proven that at least 75% of all internet traffic, is used for file sharing. They profit daily, from ad revenue, that can be seen on the same pages, as indexed searches of copyrighted material. In some nations though, torrent sites under fire, have legally demanded this topic be further reviewed by the courts, before allowing torrent sites to receive all the fire, simply for lack of understanding how it all works.
Just recently, Isohunt, has broughtit before the attention of the anti piracy outfits in Canada. IsoHunt Web Technologies Inc, the company behind the IsoHunt Bittorent search engine, has delivered a case against the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) in front of a British Columbia court, raising questions about whether search engines are liable for the sharing of copyrighted material. Isohunt delivered the case outline in court after the company received legal threats from the legal threats from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and CRIA.
The courts must now decide, whether infamous search engines such as Google, Yahoo, or Bing, which also return search queries linking in "alleged" copyrighted materials, are breaking the same copyright laws as the advocates for anti piracy claim that the IsoHuner web site does. In front of the legal system, Isohunt's attorneys demonstrated to the court, that Google can be used search for the same files that are also being found on sites like Isohunt. The only thing that torrent sites do differently, is that torrent sites are used specifically to find BitTorrent files, while Google searches all file extensions.
None the less, Google, still the world's largest search engine, is not being charged for doing the same thing that smaller torrent indexers do, allow users to search for copyrighted material. Becoming an "enabler" for the access of illegal materials. Isohunts's Gary Fung has stated, "It's disappointing to see CRIA wanting to unnecessarily complicate our well defined petition, in attempt to bog us down with time and money through messy discovery and in the process the court's time too.".
Google, Yahoo, MSN, and other major search engines could be engaged in a legal battle in Canada for returning search queries related to copyrighted material. Or maybe it will be overlooked yet again. If in fact it is over-looked, then it's time for someone to announce the hypocrisy of the anti piracy outfits. In fact, to this date, Google has linked more users to copyrighted materials, then all torrent sites combined.
Some can defend Google yes, and say it doesn't have the intent to link to copyrighted materials, where as torrent sites do. No, that claim is outrageous as well, where as torrent sites are meant to link you to useful "legal" materials, and help it's users find them with ease. There are lots of products that are not considered copyright violations, that you can find via torrent sites.
Google could easily defend itself against rather unmatched opponents such as the industry led anti piracy advocates. It's brand is worth over a hundred billion dollars. It's awfully hard to compete in trial against a company with the finances to defy and obliterate you, and the industry moguls know this.
Not only do they know Google is a multimedia powerhouse, but it's also a direct financer of many Hollywood production companies, and their owner's personal business ventures. Also, a new tool from Google was introduced, allowing locked DRM releated videos to be sold from it's online store. Google Video, delivers in a securely locked format, in which restricts how Google members are able to use and view the videos which they have purchased. Such forms of security, are known as a Digital Rights Management system (DRM). DRM is also used by many Google's competitors, and other forms of entertainment, for the purpose that it is unlike any other copyright system that is currently in place. Instead, it enforces a single method of how copyright should work, and forces it to be used by Google's customers.
So it seems, as long as you "appease" the companies whom are pursuing the copyright liability claims, that you can continue to gain profit doing the same things. As long as you have the financial backing to bend the rules, then it's okay by all means in the eyes of anti piracy outfits. In the process of violating the same regulations set forth for torrent sites, Google not only continues to do the same thing, but it also sits back unaffected as it's competition in searches, the torrent sites, are shut down, one by one.
In a modern age, where some torrent sites are forced to inflict copyright filters, and others have their service providers threatened with charges, it would seem, that Google would also have to follow the regulations. What ever happened to, all for one and one for all? Should one company be allowed to continue the same illegitimate business practices, while others are forced closed? Absolutely not. The hypocrisy of such actions, are visible to us all. I only hope that some who's vision on this matter was blurred, now can see this with eyes wide open.
In a modern age, where some torrent sites are forced to inflict copyright filters, and others have their service providers threatened with charges, it would seem, that Google would also have to follow the regulations. What ever happened to, all for one and one for all? Should one company be allowed to continue the same illegitimate business practices, while others are forced closed? Absolutely not. The hypocrisy of such actions, are visible to us all. I only hope that some who's vision on this matter was blurred, now can see this with eyes wide open.
Tags: Google Copywriter, Google Copyright, Google Copyrighting, Google Infrigment, Google Copyright Infringer
